This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 05:20, March 14, 2018 (JST, Heisei 30) (Refresh)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without consensus.

1. The section in history regarding the IBM T220 should be removed, as that monitor has nothing to do with the UHDTV standard other than a similar (but not the same) resolution. The T220 is a monitor from the 2001-2002 era (i.e. long before the UHDTV specification). This wikipedia article asserts (without reference) that this is "the first UHDTV production monitor" (not sure whether that means "the first monitor designed for production of UHDTV content" or "the first monitor with UHDTV-class resolution to enter mass production"). Even though it long precedes the publication of the specification, of course it's possible that it was designed in anticipation of UHDTV, or that is was designed for video production for cinema, which has been working with 4K resolutions since before UHDTV came along. However, reading IBM's own press release, this is their description of their own monitor: "ARMONK, N.Y. - 27 Jun 2001: IBM announces the T220, the world's highest-resolution flat panel monitor, enabling photograph-quality imaging for science, banking, engineering, publishing, medicine and business critical visualization tasks." http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1180.wss This monitor really has nothing to do with UHDTV or cinema production, and associating it after the fact does feel a bit like trying to rewrite history simply because some person started googling for old high resolution monitors to write a "history" section here.

2. There is no legitimate reference for the term "2160p", just various "4K explained"-type articles whose authors decided to use that term. It seems obvious they are just mimicking the naming convention of past video standards (720p, 1080p), and I don't consider this a legitimate source for "2160p" being an "official" shorthand for resolutions like 3840×2160 or "4320p" for 7680×4320. I have not seen any endorsement of these terms from the likes of ITU or other sources we would use for "official" information about UHDTV. As such I think these terms should be removed from this article. "Some tech columnist somewhere called it that" is not good enough for it to be endorsed here, in my opinion. GlenwingKyros (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

In shopping around for an AV Receiver I've seen some of them advertising they support "4K up-scaling" and 4K resolution. In addition there are TVs that are currently being produced with 4K resolution (see the 4K resolution Wikipedia page.) So maybe a mention of the 4k resolution and/or a new picture that includes the 4K resolution as a box in between the HD and the UHD boxes would be warranted here, since it seems 4k is already becoming the next "highest quality" television standard? Dancindazed (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Replaced the resolution chart image with one that includes 4K UHDTV. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

8K UHDTV is going to be called Super Hi-Vision in Japan. While UHDTV by itself isn't precise when it comes to resolution neither was HDTV which had resolutions of 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. --GrandDrake (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Super Hi-Vision is a codename for Ultra HD. Ultra HD was originally created for Super Hi-Vision. But suddenly some TV makers and ITU started abusing Ultra HD name for Quad Full HD (4K). Elk Salmon (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In Japan HDTV is called Hi-Vision and 8K UHDTV with 22.2 surround sound will be called Super Hi-Vision. Those terms are used in Japan and were decided on by a Japanese broadcaster. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Rec. 2020 uses the term "ultra-high definition television" for UHDTV[edit]

Rec. 2020 uses the term "ultra-high definition television" for UHDTV. The ITU-R Recommendation came out on August 23, 2012 and will be the basis for UHDTV in the same way that Rec. 709 was the basis for HDTV. As such I think that the most accurate article title would be "Ultra-high definition television". --GrandDrake (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. Note that there is a #REDIRECT in the way, so the move will either need to be requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves or the inconvenient #REDIRECT exterminated using a {{db-move}}. HairyWombat 05:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon says that he prefers the use of hyphens to convey meaning but I do not think it is right for him to push his personal opinion over an established fact. Rec. 2020 uses the term ""ultra-high definition television" and it will be the basis for UHDTV. Since he has moved this page twice without discussion I will ask for a requested controversial move. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well since no consensus was reached on the requested move I have requested that the article be moved back to the original article title. I strongly believe that the article title should be decided by discussion and consensus. The move to "Ultra-high-definition television" was made without discussion/consensus and it was done while there was a discussion on the talk page. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I will strongly oppose any move to a version that is not recommended by the style guides. Tony(talk) 06:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that you may personally dislike that but I think it best that the article title be decided by discussion/consensus and rewarding someone who violated Wikipedia policy doesn't send the right message. I am only asking that we follow Wikipedia policy on this and after the article is moved back to the original article title anyone could than do a requested controversial move to "Ultra-high-definition television". --GrandDrake (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I tried having the article moved back but despite the move violating Wikipedia policy apparently I waited to long to have that fixed. I thought that User:Dicklyon would move it back once he knew his move had no consensus but that didn't happen. Than I thought that after asking on the talk page to have the article moved back one of the admins reading would move it back but once again that didn't happen. An unfortunate conclusion to this since I think the article title should have been decided by discussion/consensus. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no change. Although I find the nominator's arguments compelling with respect to the most authoritative sources versus random reliable sources found on Google, I do not see a consensus agreeing with the change. The discussion contains a suggestion to move the article back to a completely hyphen-less name, but I don't see a strong consensus there either. ~Amatulić(talk) 22:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Rec. 2020 uses the term "ultra-high definition television" for UHDTV. The ITU-R Recommendation came out on August 23, 2012 and will be the basis for UHDTV in the same way that Rec. 709 was the basis for HDTV. As such I propose that the most accurate article title would be "Ultra-high definition television". The page was recently moved there but User:Dicklyon who had previously moved the page without discussion did so again after it had been moved. Since he has moved the page twice without discussion it is possible that he will contest this move. GrandDrake (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: For editors to move an article back and forth without first contributing to an ongoing discussion on the article's Talk page was reprehensible, and an insult to other editors. HairyWombat 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: Over at Wikipedia:Article titles it states, "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be ... consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Rec. 2020 is the reliable source, and it favours Ultra-high definition television. HairyWombat 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose—yes, that nutshell only works some of the time. Chief fly in the ointment is when the reliable sources are themselves inconsistent (sometimes even within the same text). Just a quick google search of online usage revealed the usual mess that is part of the reason we have a house style here at en.WP: we have no hyphens at all; we have one hyphen ("ultra-high definition"); and the other hyphen alone ("ultra high-definition"), and of course two hyphens ("ultra-high-definition 3-D television"). Then they get more creative: "ultrahigh-definition television", which I don't mind, but it's less common. Capitalisation is similarly a mess. Tony(talk) 16:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I double checked Rec. 2020 and it consistently uses the term "ultra-high definition television" and only capitalized the first letter when the term was at the start of a sentence. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such I think the article title should be based on the most reliable reference. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Though I think the history of Rec. 709 provides more than sufficient evidence for the statement that Rec. 2020 is the most reliable reference for UHDTV to give further evidence for that this NHK press release calls Rec. 2020 "an international standard" for UHDTV. As such though the NHK uses different names for HDTV and UHDTV their press release supports the statement that Rec. 2020 is the international standard for UHDTV. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather have no hyphens than just one that is an asymmetrical jerk of the eyes ... just as 12-year old competitor would be a road-hump. Tony(talk) 06:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Tony - you appear to have !voted twice. Dohn joe (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be proper to move the article back to what it was a week ago "Ultra High Definition Television" until a consensus can be reached on the article title. --GrandDrake (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That would certainly be a step backwards. Tony(talk) 05:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia policy it would be the correct thing to do. After all there is supposed to be a consensus when it comes to moving the article and Wikipedia policy is supposed to apply to everyone. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - as I understand WP:HYPHEN, Hyphens can help with ease of reading (face-to-face discussion, hard-boiled egg); where non-experts are part of the readership, a hyphen is particularly useful in long noun phrases, such as those in Wikipedia's scientific articles: gas-phase reaction dynamics.", it's saying that we can choose from among forms in reliable sources, and choose the form that best helps the reader understand the meaning. I acknowledge that many sources omit the hyphen from "high-definition television", because they don't feel that their readership needs it. But for the more general audience, it's very helpful to show how to parse the phrase. Reliable sources that use "ultra-high-definition television" include some recent books 2011, 2012 and various scholarly articles including from back in 1991. And some put one hyphen, but in a different place: [1]. Simply following the standards org for how they style it would be a good case of WP:SSF. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In terms of references you will find no better reference than Rec. 2020. As for the books you linked to that use the term "ultra-high-definition television" they are "Video Basics" and "Communication Technology Update" and have only short descriptions on UHDTV. As for the journal article it costs $31.50 to read. Also as I mentioned the term "ultra-high definition television" is used consistently in Rec. 2020 and as an ITU Recommendation it is by far the best reference for UHDTV. --GrandDrake (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – In accordance with the article "High-definition television", it should be "Ultra-high-definition television" or "Ultrahigh-definition television". But I fear the latter choice will seem too American for users of British English. The existing article title is the best choice if good hyphenation practices are applied; the choice made by ITU is about as bad as they could have possibly done. Christhe spelleryack 18:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not using the other article as a source (this is a talk page!); I mentioned it to demonstrate Wikipedia's style. As you said, Wikipedia:Article titles lists the reasons for why an article title should be chosen, and "Consistency" is one of them: "Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles". It's absurd to try to apply WP:CIRCULAR here. Christhe spelleryack 13:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to make clear that Wikipedia:CIRCULAR states the Wikipedia position on self reference. As for consistency that relates to "patterns" and it is merely one of the goals while the three core policies are verifiability, no original research, and a neutral point of view. I also think that Wikipedia policy is important to mention especially since I notice that not one admin posting here has yet to move the article title back to "Ultra High Definition Television" until a consensus can be reached on the article title. After all User:Dicklyon did violate Wikipedia policy by moving the article without discussion/consensus (even while a discussion was happening on the talk page) and I believe that Wikipedia policies are supposed to apply to everyone. Regardless of which article title is eventually chosen I think it would be best to have it decided by discussion/consensus. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment Ever source i have seen including BBC refer to it as Ultra high-defintion television or Super hi-vision Television there is no hypen after the ultra or super if you want the bbc source which by reliable source noticeboard is one the most reliable on Wikipedia i can find it out, i dnt oppose or support the change as neither is right. [1]Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Sources are all over the place (see this Google Books search), inserting and withholding hyphens willy-nilly. The hyphenless version seems slightly to predominate, and I wouldn't oppose a move back to that version. But between the versions in this RM, I see no reason of style or actual usage to support a move. Dohn joe (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was closed for procedural reasons, per Noetica and others. It is customary not to reopen a closed rm request for at least six months. In exceptional circumstances when new compelling evidence is presented this can be done. I see no such evidence here. -- PBS (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, for procedural reasons in the first instance. Why was the duly closed RM not taken to Wikipedia:Move review instead? It is exactly the same proposal, from the same proposer. If more evidence was available (which is not obviously the case), why was it not adduced before the previous close? With all due respect, this is an imposition on editors' time.I request withdrawal or a speedy close, and submission for review if that is wanted.NoeticaTea? 08:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a good amount of evidence for Rec. 709 in order to show the importance of Rec. 2020. Also which Wikipedia procedure says that additional evidence is not sufficient grounds for a requested move? --GrandDrake (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Tony1, considering that you only recently ignored a move that violated Wikipedia policy by User:Dicklyon (he moved the page despite my repeated statements that I disagreed with it and during an ongoing discussion on the talk page), that you ignored my request to move it back to the original article title, and that you are now opposing a discussion of this requested move I got a bit suspicious. I checked your history and notice that you and Dicklyon know each other. I am getting just a bit concerned since I also notice that in the previous requested move you voted twice to oppose it which had to be corrected by the person who closed it. --GrandDrake (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose although i dnt agree with the title either the current or the proposed one i am strongly opposing this as the editor who proposed the original move has proposed another move right after the other one closed with a consensus of no change, there now very possible boarding on heading for ANI for disruptive behavior, i really argue the editor to withdraw this before they face sanctions from admins. Policies do not prevent you submitting a page to be deleted or moved but there has to be significant new evidence from the original one to support your claim, ive review your information and there not a signifcent change in the source provide, and you shouldn't be referring to other articles to support your claim it should always be reliable sourcesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The talk about Wikipedia policy would be more understandable if the violation of Wikipedia policy by User:Dicklyon had not been completely ignored in the previous requested move. I protested against the article move he made, which was done during a discussion on the talk page in the section called "Rec. 2020 uses the term "ultra-high definition television" for UHDTV", and nothing was done about that and yet I am being told that a second requested move may be considered disruptive behavior? To me that does not make sense.

As for what is considered "significant new evidence" for making a requested move could you post a link? I couldn't find an article related to Wikipedia:Requested moves that explains that and in my opinion showing the importance of Rec. 709 (the ITU-R Recommendation for HDTV) helps show the importance of Rec. 2020 (the ITU-R Recommendation for UHDTV). This is only the second time I have done a requested move on Wikipedia so I have no idea what is considered normal but I would point out that Rec. 2020 only became official last month so it may be a while before new evidence appears for it. I want this article to be as accurate as possible but I very much want to follow Wikipedia policy even if it does make that goal harder. Still I spent a good amount of time gathering the links to those Rec. 709 technical books to show how important it was for HDTV. As such could you link to the Wikipedia article that defines "significant new evidence" so I could see what you are referring to? --GrandDrake (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

i cannot comment on the original move, but some editors are aware if they do it they can then make it harder to undo, but what another editor has done is nothing to do with this, your actions could be seen as disrup0tive, instead of trying to get teh articles moved improve it and cite sources, eventally you argument for move would be better.

its not my job to post where the policy is, if you feel i am wrong then contunie to do what yoru doing but i have warned you for oyur own good as another editor could report you i dnt believe in reporting editor for content unless its very serious which this does not meet my criteria for but other other editors are stickler for the rules and policies.

i would like ot point out to you, that you have just admittted that the guidleimes on specifications have only just been finalised s there not many 3rd party relibale source reporting it yet waiting wont harm anyone. oh i should note that the articles doesnt meant the first real world test of UHDTV in the uk by bbc via a single satillete transpodner using mpeg4Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I would mention that I have made multiple improvements to the UHDTV article over the last several months and that I started the Rec. 2020 article. There will certainly be more evidence for Rec. 2020 in the future so in terms of compromise if anyone else believes that the links to the Rec. 709 technical books was not sufficient additional evidence than I would agree to a speedy close. --GrandDrake (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Was there any information that should have been added to the proposal in "Requested move 2"?[edit]

I will wait for more evidence for Rec. 2020 but was there any information that should have been added to the proposal in "Requested move 2"? Should I have given an explanation about the ITU-R Recommendations or about the International Telecommunication Union? Was there anything that needed clarification?

Also for future consideration should I mention that the article was briefly "Ultra-high definition television" as explained in section "Rec. 2020 uses the term "ultra-high definition television" for UHDTV"? Would that information be considered relevant for a requested move or would it be better to stick to a pure evidence based proposal for "Ultra-high definition television"? I would appreciate any constructive criticism. --GrandDrake (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The CEA has announced that they will use the term "Ultra High-Definition" so would anyone oppose a move to "Ultra high-definition television"?[edit]

The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) has announced that they will use the term "Ultra High-Definition". I think that a move to "Ultra high-definition television" would fall under Wikipedia:COMMONNAME since the CEA is made up of over 2,000 companies. I would prefer to do a technical move and if there are no objections a week from now I will ask for that. Are there any objections to having the article moved to "Ultra high-definition television"? --GrandDrake (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a convincing argument. What does "Ultra" modify in that construction? High definition? Seems wrong. Isn't it about that a definition that's ultra high? If it's just a meaningless marketing tag of the CEA, that's one thing; but if we're trying to convey meaning, let the punctuation help. Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

For someone who moved the article without discussion I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I would point out that there is no good evidence for "Ultra high-definition television". You simply chose that term based on your personal opinion which goes against Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Where is the UHDTV standard that uses the term "Ultra-high-definition television"? Where is the major organization that has announced that they will use the term "Ultra-high-definition television"? You may prefer the article title to have two hyphens but Wikipedia is not a blog. It is an encyclopedia and the articles on it are supposed to be based on facts and references.

I think the term that will be used for the labelling and marketing of UHDTVs is more important than a personal opinion. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, you can see that I'm not such a fan of marketing terms, and prefer to use a style that is most informative to readers and respects WP:MOS including WP:HYPHEN. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Since all the different combinations of spaces and hyphens are common, we should choose the one that conveys the intended meaning. There are many sources in which you can verify the current title styling. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue though is what term will be most common, is verifiable, and has a neutral point of view. I don't see any good evidence for the term that you prefer. Where is the UHDTV standard that uses the term "Ultra-high-definition television"? Where is the major organization that has announced that they will use the term "Ultra-high-definition television"? Also there was no consensus back when you moved the article to "Ultra-high-definition television". There was no discussion, you ignored the fact that I and HairyWombat supported a different title, and you didn't even bother posting on the UHDTV talk page until I made my requested move. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. These are all the same name, differently styled. There is no issue of verifiability or NPOV that I can see. We should style it for the benefit of readers. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the idea that readers would be confused by the term "Ultra high-definition television". I want this article to be based on facts/references and that includes the article title. I will wait a few days for additional comments and than ask for a requested move to "Ultra high-definition television". --GrandDrake (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In the list of UHDTV standards there's a reference to ITU-R BT.1706 (2006). According to the ITU-R Website here, there is no recommendation with that number. Perhaps someone more familiar with the BT family of standards can correct this. Conquerist (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked the article history and back in 2010 it was 1769 so it looks like someone accidently changed that number. I checked ITU-R BT.1769 and it refers to 3840x2160 and 7680x4320 video so I will correct that number and add a reference for it. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia policy compels no particular hyphenation scheme in this article's title, nor in the text, and the current dispute over hyphens dates back to a move in August of 2012,[2] which was controversial but not subsequently reversed. The article had been stable at the name "Ultra High Definition Television" for approximately two years prior to that move.[3] Wikipedia's rules regarding capitalization are clearer than those regarding hyphenation, and there is no apparent debate over the use of capitals in this article's title, so the change to lower case ("ultra high definition television") performed in August will be retained.

If one particular hyphenation scheme were clearly more commonly used in the field, that would be the natural choice, per WP:COMMONNAME. No such "clear winner" exists, however. Wikipedia does not reflexively adopt official names, nor does it reject them. In this case there are two competing official names (CEA's and ITU's), both of which are hyphenated in an awkward way, so consensus has not formed around them either.

As for MOS:HYPHEN, it offers suggestions, not compulsions, regarding use: "Hyphens can help with ease of reading" or "to disambiguate". There's no ambiguity problem here, and I for one find both hyphenated and unhyphenated forms of the term equally unreadable. So: abandon all hyphens, ye who argue here. Pretty please?--Father Goose (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The current article title is based on a move that was made back in August without discussion, was opposed by two long term contributors, was not based on any UHDTV standard, and was not based on any major organization. The edit description for the move stated that the move was because of recent books but the evidence that was later given for it was two books which were Video Basics 7 and Communication Technology Update 10. The books provided only short descriptions on UHDTV and one of those descriptions was only two sentences long.

Not so fast. As noted in the article, the official spec for this is ITU-R BT.2020. Its title uses "ultra-high definition", not "ultra high-definition". It does not seem entirely clear to me whether the CEA intended to suggest a particular use of hyphens or only really cares about the three words in the phrase. Their press release does not specifically discuss the location of hyphens. And regardless of the CEA's intent, it is also not clear that its suggestion regarding the hyphenation will be uniformly followed. To me, the hyphenation used by the ITU-R is more natural than what is suggested in the CEA press release. —Mulligatawny (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No – when usage is highly variable, as it is here across standards, trade groups, and scholarly publications, it makes sense for WP to choose the form that is most like normal English in the way it conveys the intended structure and meaning to the reader. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COMMONNAME states that the article title should be the most common name for a subject based on reliable sources and there is already more evidence for the term decided on by the CEA than for the current article title. I think that starting the article with "Ultra high-definition television (Ultra HDTV or UHDTV) includes..." would make things clear for people who are searching for information on "Ultra HD". For example several people have contributed to the UltraHD article (which was likely used since Ultra HD redirects to this article) and confusion due to the current article title will only increase as more consumer products are labelled and/or marketed using the term "Ultra HD". --GrandDrake (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is a good reason to use a generic name for the topic, styled per WP:MOS, rather than an industry-group capitalized trademark, or a lowercase version of an industry group capitalized trademark. Dicklyon (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

mos also says commonname when no known name is available in this cae thee is plenty of reliable sources say it as Ultra High-Defintion, your oppoing on techincallies and not for policies or because of reliable source please explain your decision on why you are refusing to accept the naming convention as used in a lot of reliable sources????Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Ultra high-definition television" is not trademarked, which isn't even an issue for Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, and I notice that you didn't deny the fact that there is more evidence for the CEA term than for the current article title. The CEA created the term for enhanced-definition television (EDTV) and what they trademark is the logo that they use on compliant products. That is why there is no trademark symbol on "Ultra High-Definition", or "Ultra HD", in the CEA press release. Considering you moved the article back in August I understand that you prefer the current article title but you are going a bit far in trying to find a reason for it not to be moved. --GrandDrake (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's registered or not, the press release with its capitalized name and discussion of what it's for makes it very clear that it's a trademark. They say CEA’s Board of Industry Leaders unanimously voted yesterday to endorse the consensus opinion of CEA’s “4K” Working Group recommending the term “Ultra High-Definition” and related performance attributes. The name and related minimum performance characteristics are designed to help consumers and retailers understand the attributes of this next generation of superior television and display technology beginning to roll out this fall. – now, if this were a generic term "ultra high-definition", we would still hyphenate it when using it as an adjective in "ultra-high-definition television". You wouldn't normally put hyphens into someone's capitalized trademark; for the article title, it's better to stick to the older generic term than adopt this new terminology as the press release calls it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any indication in the CEA press release that the term is trademarked and it doesn't even matter. Wikipedia:COMMONNAME states that the article title should be the most common name for a subject based on reliable sources. Also it is a bit much to call the current article title the "older generic term" since you only moved the article back in August. Before that the article was at "Ultra High Definition Television" for over a year so you might want to reconsider trying to make an argument based on age. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a recent news article on Sony's Ultra HD TV that uses the generic term styles as "ultra-high-definition television". You can also see there, and at all the other new sites that copied it from Sony's written statement, that their spokesman used the phrase "now that we're going ultra-high-def" with hyphens thus. Similarly with Sony's new ultra-high-definition video player. These are not fringe outlets making up styling; the news outlets and Sony seem to be in agreement. It just makes more sense not to confuse English with trademarks. And the evidence does not support the claim that the CEA's press release is being interpreted as a styling mandate. Dicklyon (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And as of November, the ITU is still using their alternative hyphenation in their latest press release. And look at news. No evidence of any move toward any standardized styling. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is about choosing the title name, not about how to style and punctuate it. We routine adjust capitalization and punctuation to conform to WP style and good English grammar. And it's not a binary decision in any case, as COMMONNAME allows for the use of not-most-common names as well. All the criteria of WP:TITLE and the styling provisions of WP:MOS should be considered when considering a move. Additionally, your wall of links is misleading; some of them don't even contain the phrase "high-definition" at all, and are more about the trademark "Ultra HD". None of them, as far as I can see, use any generic (lower-case) term for this topic. Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I usually try to find sources that agree with any MOS-based styling move that I make, and I look at books first. But if you look at recent web and news hits (set it for the last month or whatever you want to look at), you find quite a mix, including support for the two hyphens, and relatively little support for your preferred styling (the CEA way). Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on a plain Google search results for "ultra high definition television" I can see that there are a variety of ways it is hyphenated. Wikipedia:COMMONNAME states though that the most common name should be used and from what I have seen that is the term decided on by the CEA. I have presented a large number of links in support of that as well as the CEA press release. You have said that you dislike marketing terms but that is not a valid reason to ignore the CEA which is an organization that represents over 2,000 companies. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, you are misinterpreting what COMMONNAME says. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:COMMONNAME very closely and it clearly states that the most common term is used for the article title and the reason that is done is because it is the most recognizable. From what I can see you simply don't like the term that was chosen by the CEA since it is different than the term you chose when you moved the article back in August. Also I would mention that the CEA's Board of Industry Leaders unanimously voted for the CEA term which was mentioned in the press release. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We're not discussing any different terms; just case and punctuation, or styling. Besides that, COMMONNAME says "is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." Nothing about "most recognizable", or must always be used. Also see WP:TITLE#Standard_English_and_trademarks, which says "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks", which is essentially saying that we don't let the trade association set our style. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COMMONNAME states that Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". None of the exceptions that it mentions are relevant to this discussion. As for the trademark policy it merely states that "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". I don't see how trademarks are relevant to this discussion. As I said earlier there is no evidence that "Ultra High-Definition" is trademarked, there is no trademark symbol next to it in the CEA press release, and the CEA never trademarked enhanced-definition television. --GrandDrake (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Comment GrandDrake why are so hell bent on getting it changed asap? if your right then over time reliable source will show this including uhd broadcasts and uhd players in the future what harm does the title do??? here is a suggestion i recently involved in a similar case where the sources where all over the place and still are so we put in sometimes refer to x way and sometimes refer to y way in the main body of the article with sources leaving it to read to decide.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Friendly advice GrandDrake you are bordering on distrupive with you repeated attempts at move granted new evidence this time but asked before doing it and no support was for doing it or not doing it so you should have left it alone, also i suggest you read wp:own as you saud last time youve done a lot of work 9n the article and i think you might feel you own itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two reasons I decided it was necessary to try moving the article sooner rather than later. The first is that many websites on the internet use Wikipedia as a source of information. As such the longer the current article title is used the more outside sources will use that hyphenation which could than be used as an argument to keep it. The second reason is that often the status quo is used as an argument against change. I have been on Wikipedia for over four years and I have never made any requested moves for any other article and the reason I feel strongly about this particular issue is because I don't think that an article title should be based on a personal opinion. I don't see any need to use a term for UHDTV that is based on weak evidence and is not used by any UHDTV standard or major organization. I contribute mainly to technical articles and I think that they should be based on facts/references. I think that it makes sense to use the term that will be used in the labelling and marketing of UHDTVs. A term that was chosen by the CEA, the largest consumer electronics organization on the planet, and was unanimously supported by the CEA's Board of Industry Leaders when it was voted on. --GrandDrake (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

and anyone who uses wikipedia as source are daft wikipedia relies on outside sources to make it decision. i suggest you take a step back from the article because you dnt seem to be taking wp:truthwp:consensuswp:pov and wp:or i am trying to help you so you dnt get yourself a topic ban or worse, no argument is sound and cea is a primary source so it cant be used, but there is jsut the same amnount of reliable source using the hypen after the ultra so there no true answer the best option is to meantion it in the article and soruce itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used on Wikipedia as explained in Wikipedia:PRIMARY and I have seen many featured articles on Wikipedia that use press releases for references. Also earlier in this section I posted a lot of links to secondary sources about the CEA press release. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

primary sources can be used if backed up with 3rd party reliable sources,ive tried to helop you and maybe stop a report about you if you dnt want to listen to help thats fine. secondary sources are doggy as they general just copy primary source and dnt wrkte it uo them i think there a few of the links you meantioned reliable 3rd prty but you going about the name change all wrongAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice but I very much believe that this requested move is supported by both reliable sources and Wikipedia policy. I wasn't able to convince Dicklyon of that but I thought it was worth a try. I did a quick check and all the secondary source links I posted about the CEA press release did comment on it (though how reliable you think a website is would depend on what you think of the website). Also I continue to see more articles coming out that use the CEA term and just a few days ago there was a USA Today article. --GrandDrake (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

some editors will say a site is unreliable because they dnt like it but if in doubt post it to reliable sources notuceboard for wider scrunity, the one posted is 3rd party reliable source however wikipedia is based on consensus and since the consensus is oppose just now it unlikely to happen edit the article meantion the use of the none ypen name nd go from thereAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong Support Reliable sources are now using the name Ultra High-Defintion and are not using the term ultra-high-defintion now, wikipedia common name policie says that the name used most widely should be used and this is the widely used name, mos also says a article should not be confusing to reader currently it is as some older sources use the current article name but newer sources use the proposed nameAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources are actually all over the map on how they style it. This highdefdigest article has Ultra High Definition, Ultra-High-Definition, Ultra-HD, ultra-high-definition, Ultra High Def, and ULTRA-HIGH-DEFINITION. Everything except the way the CEA did it, even though they include a long quote from the CEA guy with some of these. Many others use no hyphens at all. Styles just vary, even people agree on the name. Dicklyon (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

show mea recent sources not one froma few months ago, an i will withdraw my support, othewise your objecting due to old sourcesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not surprised that the LG marketing material from late October is different. It wasn't until October 18 that the CEA made its announcement and it takes time for marketing material to be changed. For example "Ultra High Definition" was used on the marketing sign in that highdefdigest article but "Ultra HD TV" was used on the marketing sign in this later PCWorld Australia article. Dicklyon, are you saying that you think the majority of CE companies will ignore the CEA term? If so I would disagree since the reason the consumer electronics companies made a trade association was to make decisions like this one. The CEA decided on a term so that there would be a common term used by consumer electronics companies. --GrandDrake (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what companies will do, or whether they'll interpret the CEA's announcement as constraining punctuation and capitalization. Perhaps they will, if they treat it as a trademark, which is what it's described like. But that doesn't necessarily mean we want to change from the English generic version to the trademark version. Give it time. Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

so you have no reason for it not to move based on policies, if you cant provide a recent source since the CEA announcement that still shows other description formats from a reliable source then there no reason not to move. what is this all about "that doesn't necessarily mean we want to change from the English generic version to the trademark version" you went on about commonname above a policies yet when if your wrong and places use the trademark name you still dnt want to move and the article name should be represent the subject properly which it wouldn't so please explain your decisions for that comment. (note i am note trying to single you out or have a go at you im merely trying to understand your reasons and policies you are saying matter to your decision as why you wont move or wont want to move in the future, please dnt take this as me trying o undermine you)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The idea of using a "generic version" of a term instead of the most common term would go against WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Also a trademark can be used as the article title though I have not yet seen any evidence that it is trademarked. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't we use the generic adhesive bandage in preference to the more common Band-Aid? I see that in this case we actually made a separate article about the latter brand name, which seems unnecessary, but is one way to go. Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it clear that the idea of using a "generic version" of a term instead of the most common term would go against a few Wikipedia policies. Also there is a huge difference between a marketing term and a brand name though I notice that one of the articles you linked to doesn't even have any references. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Also there is no evidence the CEA term is trademarked. For example even in the first blog post from Intel about the Xeon Phi they made sure to use a trademark symbol next to it. On the other hand there is no trademark symbol used with the CEA term in the CEA press release and note that they even put a copyright symbol next to the organization's own name in the first paragraph. And there is no trademark symbol next to the CEA term in any of the press releases from the consumer electronic companies which can be seen in this Sony press release. As such the CEA term is a marketing term that will be used in the labelling and marketing of UHDTVs by the consumer electronics companies. --GrandDrake (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Support, due to WP:COMMONNAME. The policy is pretty direct; with few exceptions, most common name should be used. --128.187.97.19 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

How does COMMONNAME support this? There's no evidence even that the new CEA styling is particularly common. Furthermore, COMMONNAME is more flexible than you seem to think, and has nothing to say about how we style the name. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The CEA is an organization of over 2,000 consumer electronics companies and that term was unanimously supported by the CEA's Board of Industry Leaders when it was voted on. I have provided many links from reliable sources to support that and major companies such as LG Electronics and Sony have already started using the CEA term. Also the reason for using the most common term is because it is the most recognizable. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

you claim commonname supports this currently title even when it says to use what reliable sources use, you insist on using generic version you have yet to give a good support argument to keep it with recent sourcesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

But commonname is about terms in use, not about terms voted on. And it's not about styling anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing on Wikipedia:Article titles that states that the style of the most common term should be ignored. In fact it makes statements such as "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by" and in WP:CRITERIA the characteristics of recognizability and naturalness would support using the style that is used by the most common term. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Also just to add some more information the CEA term was used yesterday in a press release about an Ultra HD aerial camera system. --GrandDrake (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose—first of all, that's weird ... to remove a hyphen so one of the components is dangling out the front? Ultra television? Um ... no. That's before we even think about the other issues. Tony(talk) 05:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

you must be confused it does not say ultra television it says Ultra High-Defintion so your opposing a name that isnt even suggested to be moved toAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe Tony's point is that without the first hyphen, the Ultra has no indication that it is supposed to be modifying high definition, so it appears to modify television (in the form of the noun phrase high-definition television) instead. This is not the intent, so the punctuation that way sends the wrong signal to the naive English reader. The first hyphen fixes that problem and clarifies the intended reading of the phrase, to naive and sophisticated readers as well. When speaking of definition, you'd say "ultra-high definition" to clarify that the ultra modifies high; using it as an adjective with television calls for that other hyphens Many writers do it this way, as a service to their readers. The CEA chose not to, because it is pretty conventional to omit otherwise-appropriate hyphens from trademarks. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

ive got reading problems yet i understand it perfectly clear it says ultra high-defintion television there nothing there that not easy to understand your reasons for oppsing are getting weaker ad weaker, you start with one policie then move onto another as it proved your wrong, the offical name is ultra high-defintion so i dnt get why you wont accept thatAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That some people might dislike the CEA term is an issue of personal opinion and I see nothing on WP:Article titles that states that the style of the most common term should be ignored. In fact it makes statements such as "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by" and in WP:CRITERIA the characteristics of recognizability and naturalness would support using the style that is used by the most common term. Also you have said earlier that you don't think that it matters what the most common term is and that a "generic version" of the term should be used instead. The idea of using a "generic version" of a term instead of the most common term would go against WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've stayed quiet for a while, as I have a substantial amount of respect for both GrandDrake and Dicklyon and wanted to see how things played out. To me, omitting a hyphen after "ultra" seems rather odd. However, there are other examples of industry jargon about prefixes that give me pause – e.g. "intra" and "inter" in video coding are not always used as prefixes. One thing I noticed is that "ultra" is actually a word on its own – not always used as a prefix, according to several dictionaries. I found the Merriam-Webster entry particularly interesting, as it includes the example usage "ultra conservatism" without hyphenation. If that usage is acceptable to Merriam-Webster, then perhaps "ultra high-definition television" should also be acceptable. While having no hyphen after "ultra" seems a bit strange to me, the double-hyphenated three-word string "ultra-high-definition" also seems strange. Personally, my inclination would be to just let things bounce around for six months or a year until it becomes more clear what has become commonly used. Both the ITU and CEA official statements are still very recent at this point (especially that of the CEA). I suppose the CEA wanted to emphasize HD as a single unit, and the ITU thought saying that the television had "ultra-high" definition made sense. My impression is that industry may not uniformly follow CEAs suggestion, and the CEA itself did not comment about whether they considered the hyphenation to be an important part of what they were proclaiming. At this point, I think I could go either way, but I thought that these remarks might be helpful to the discussion. —Mulligatawny (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There's certainly no problem with ultra conservatism, or an ultra conservative. But in the adjective form, like ultra-conservative attitude, the hyphenation is standard, and helps the reader parse the phrase. See books. Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The CEA press release had the term in quotation marks. The CEA Ultra HD Working Group, which was previously called the CEA 4K Working Group, said that "We discussed and debated two important steps, the name and recommended attributes, in a forum that allowed a variety of key stakeholders, manufacturers, retailers, broadcasters and Hollywood professionals to lend their voices." The CEA term was "the result of extensive consumer research" and ""Ultra HD” consistently rated highest in terms of helping consumers understand the technology". --GrandDrake (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think they made a good choice. Ultra HD will be an excellent trademark for their ultra-high-resolution products. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the CEA term is trademarked. There is no trademark symbol used with the CEA term in the CEA press release and note that they even put a trademark symbol next to the organization's own name in the first paragraph. There is no trademark symbol used with the CEA term in any of the press releases from the consumer electronic companies which can be seen in this Sony press release. There is no trademark symbol used with the CEA term in the press release that came out less than a week ago about an Ultra HD aerial camera system. I have seen no evidence for your claim. Wikipedia has a clear position on evidence as stated in WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it "is trademarked", whatever that means. It's a mark used in trade, which is why it's capitalized. Sony is consistently using the "Ultra HD" label on the page you link, but I don't see any place they use "Ultra high-definition". They do it with two hyphens, lower case, and with zero hyphens, capitalized. There's no evidence that Sony, for one, has let their punctuation style be influenced by the CEA announcement. Maybe they will some day. But let's stick t the generic English instead of the trademarks. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A trademark is a specific term and you had previously posted a link to the Wikipedia policy regarding trademarks. That is why I wanted to make it clear that if you want to argue that the CEA term is trademarked that you need to prove it with a reliable source. As for Ultra HD it is the shortened version of the CEA term which can be seen in CEA press release and in many of the article links I have posted. --GrandDrake (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at new stories in the last month. Only 5 of 32 (basically just LG and Sharp) hyphenate it the way the CEA did. Companies and news outlets apparently feel free to style it their own way. So should we feel free to style it according to standard English guidelines that favor the reader. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of evidence when you moved the article back in August you said that hyphenation was due to recent books. When asked for evidence you gave two books one of which was had a description that was only two sentences long. Yet despite that you now argue that there isn't enough evidence for this requested move even though it is supported by a trade organization that represents over 2,000 consumer electronics companies, many articles links from reliable sources, and usage by several companies. You have also said that you don't care whether the CEA term is the most common term and that you will oppose this requested move regardless of evidence. That you believe that a "generic version" of the term should be used that just happens to be the term that you prefer. From the comments you have made you aren't just against this requested move but also against WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. --GrandDrake (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dicklyon your being very biased and not only are you goign against the policies above your going against wp:ownand have made it quite clear you will go against wp:consensus i think your reasons for opposing are getting closed to invalidated a closing admin looking at your arguments when you clearly make it clear you dnt care about eh policies will see that a consensus is not being reached because your doing everything to prevent it for your own personal gainAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Much as I hate wasting my time on RM discussions these days, and have pretty well sworn off them, it is hard to stand idly by in cases like this. Two RMs have already been attempted; and now essentially the same flawed arguments and irrelevant evidence are trotted out for a third attempt. Hoping everyone else will surrender from exhaustion, perhaps? Please note:

Practically all style guides support a hyphen after the prefix "ultra". And yes, that is the best analysis of "ultra" in the present stock-standard case. (SOED gives examples like this at the entry "ultra- pref.": ultrahigh, ultra-red [= infrared], ultra-royalist, ultra-short.) Therefore, "ultra-high-definition", right?

The underlying structure for "ultra-high-definition television" is this: [X~Y Z], where Y ="high-definition". X~Y modifies Z; and within X~Y, X modifies Y, so ~ is realised as a hyphen. It makes no difference that Y itself has a composite structure, calling for a hyphen (when Y stands before Z as a premodifier). You simply have two hyphens, then: "ultra-crunchy cookies", "mouth-watering cookies", "ultra-mouth-watering cookies". That's all standard. It therefore is what the MOS guidelines would call for.

This is indeed a styling issue, not a content issue. Therefore, appeal to content authorities is not directly relevant. Wikipedia's manual of style (MOS) draws immediately on other major style guides (CMOS, New Hart's Rules, and so on). Those are the primary "reliable sources" for MOS; and through them and the best-practice tendencies of the best current publishing, MOS indeed reflects and respects reliable sources more broadly.

The Wikipedian principles against "original research" concern content; nowhere do they affect the free, consensual, and well-informed choices of styling that are made at WP:MOS and its subpages. This is not a matter for WP:TITLE and its associated pages. Nor are WP:MOS and WP:TITLE in conflict, as some misguidedly suppose. They are in harmony. WP:TITLE does not address styling; and WP:MOS stays well away from issues of content.

I have never seen a Wikipedia policy that states that the hyphenation of the most common term should be ignored. There is a Wikipedia policy on the capitalization of articles titles as explained in WP:NCCAPS but there is no Wikipedia policy that states that article titles must be hyphenated in a certain way. Hyphenation varies depending on the term and terms that begin with the same word can vary in how they are hyphenated. Some people have strong opinions about how hyphenation should be done but strong opinions are not the same as Wikipedia policy. And the idea that was proposed earlier in this section of using a "generic version" of the most common term would go against WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. You say that this requested move is not a matter for WP:Article titles but requested move arguments are supposed to be based on it. Also the policy states that "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by" and in WP:CRITERIA the characteristics of recognizability and naturalness would support using the hyphenation that is used by the most common term. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that particular set of comments by GrandDrake. If we can establish that some form of hyphenation is the most common usage in reliable sources, then I think that's what we should use for the name of this technology, rather than imposing our own "improvement" of the common name. And if there is an official name, that name (hyphenation included) should be considered as a possibility – especially in the absence of clear evidence that some other name is more common. The problem here is that there is inconsistency in the official naming (between ITU and CEA) and in the current common usage as well, and it seems too early to know what usage is likely to eventually become the most common. I believe this is a matter to determine by consensus as a result of the discussion for this particular article, as I do not see clear Wikipedia policy indicating otherwise (and actually, WP:OFFICIALNAMES says that official names "should always be considered as possibilities"). To me it seems odd that the hyphenation we are currently using for the title of this article isn't consistent with either the ITU or CEA usage. —Mulligatawny (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I accept the closing rationale. I will wait at least 6 months for additional evidence to be released for the CEA term. I think it is likely that a lot of product announcements will be made at the International CES show next month. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like an odd rationale. The linked instructions say "Therefore, if the closer feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name." That does not suggest that a closer should move the article to a title that it has never had before, with the rationale "most recent stable hyphenation". The title since August was the first title compatible with the MOS, and there was no consensus to move it; not to either of the proposed one-hyphen versions, and not to the no-hyphen version that nobody even proposed. Very odd indeed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the decision to move it back to the last stable article title and when you moved the article back in August you did it without discussion and it was opposed by two long term contributors as seen in "Rec. 2020 uses the term "ultra-high definition television" for UHDTV". --GrandDrake (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

But he did not move it back to the last stable article title. He moved it to a title that it has never had before, and that nobody requested. He explained this carefully in his rationale, but I don't agree that it was a good rationale. Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

While I don't believe that WP style is dictated by usage, data on usage is generally looked at in styling discussions. So next time we try to fix the title styling here, it would be good to have some good data to look at. So I'm been collecting data from google books and google scholar; below. Dicklyon (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Among the capitalized trademark-like uses, hyphens are much less used. This is pretty typical of trademarks.

Among the generic lowercase uses, hyphens are more common. The hyphenless version is very rare in books and uncommon in papers.

Between the one-hyphen versions there is no clear preference.

Neither the CEA's (Ultra High-Definition Television) nor the other (Ultra-High Definition Television) capitalized one-hyphen version is common, compared to generics.

A majority of generic lowercase uses have a hyphen between ultra and high.

A majority of generic lowercase uses have a hyphen between high and definition.

The most common generic version by a small margin is "ultra-high definition television" (ITU's styling).

The second most common generic version is the one that uses hyphens like typical other "ultra-high-x thing" uses.

I notice four problems. The first problem is that this data ignored articles and press releases. Recognizability isn't just based on books and scholarly articles. I have seen many articles and press releases that use the CEA term and some of them are used as references in this article. The second problem is that "Ultra HD" is ignored and it is the abbreviated form of the CEA term which can be seen in the CEA press release. I have seen many articles and press releases that use the term Ultra HD. The third problem is that there is no policy that defines how you decide on the "most common generic version" of a term. The very use of the word "generic" is subjective. The fourth problem is that I have read many articles and press releases that use the CEA term and I have seen no evidence that it is trademarked. Can you prove that the CEA term is trademarked? --GrandDrake (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to collect data from press releases and news stories, too. I focused on the most reliable sources that I could find, with the searches I documented. And yes I ignored the capitalized trade term "Ultra HD", as well as UHD and UHDTV, as these are not among the suitable possible article titles, I think. You are right that there is no policy about how to determine the "most common generic version" of a term, and I am not pretending to try, since it's not very relevant; notice that I also included the non-generic (capitalized) forms. These forms are probably not trademarked per se, but often function as trademarks, as when a trade association picks one for labelling products that conform to their specs. In the case of the CEA, their "Ultra HD" recommendation is catching on as an official mark with certification, while their recommendation "Ultra High-Definition Television" seems not to be catching on, as usage remains very mixed, even in news stories that mention the CEA. By the way, several companies have registered "Ultra HD" as a trademark for their products, but none as broad as covering televisions, it looks like. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There are dozens of articles and press releases used as references in the article. On the issue of hyphenation "Ultra high-definition", "Ultra high-definition television", "Ultra High-Definition", "Ultra High-Definition Television", "Ultra HD", and "Ultra HDTV" are all relevant. And I notice that in the last two posts on this talk page you have said "trademark-like", "typical of trademarks", "trade term", and "function as trademarks". There is no evidence that the CEA term is trademarked. As for product names companies can use common words in their product names and that doesn't mean that those common words are trademarked. For example Sony may have a product called "4K Ultra HD Video Player" but that doesn't mean that "Video Player" is trademarked. So I ask again do you have any evidence that the CEA term is trademarked? --GrandDrake (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there is no evidence that the CEA term is trademarked than the Wikipedia policy on trademarks doesn't apply to it. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. That's why I moved it from the trademark-like capitalized Ultra High Definition Television to the generic ultra-high-definition television. And it's why I oppose adopting the CEA's trademark-like capitalized term. And even if the term is trademarked by some, as "Ultra HD" is, we prefer to use a generic term until the article is specifically about the trademarked item. This is also why I object to trying to import the hyphenation patterns from the trademark-like stylings into the generic and into our title. Especially the CEA's unusual hyphenation that seems only designed to support the "Ultra HD" label in trade. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again do you have any evidence that the CEA term is trademarked? If not than your statements about how it looks "trademark-like" would be personal opinion. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, "trademark-like" as in capitalized and used to signify (and dignify) a class of products. If you know a better term for it, cough it up. Maybe "brand" is better? This article calls it a "rebranding" by the CEA. Although they also say it's the same as the ITU's, so I guess they're not even noticing the difference in the hyphens; not surprising, as even many of the Ultra HD branders seem to be ignoring the CEA's odd hyphen choice. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that marketing term would be a neutral way to refer to the CEA term since it will be used in marketing by the consumer electronics companies. Also I don't think that capitalization necessarily means anything since a term can be capitalized for emphasis. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just read the 2013 paragraph and found what seems to be a contradiction to me.

"On January 8, 2013, Broadcom announced [...] volume production estimated for the middle of 2014. On the same day THX announced the "THX 4K Certification" program for Ultra HD displays with the first certification going to the Sharp LC-60HQ10."

"On June 26, 2013, Sharp announced the LC-70UD1U which is a 70 in (180 cm) 4K Ultra HD TV. The LC-70UD1U is the world's first TV with THX 4K certification."

So, which TV was actually the first to receive THX 4K certification? Clearly one built by Sharp, but which model?

Also, I'd like to point out that the way that paragraph (and the 2012 one as well) is written right now, it's a terrible read - it's basically just an endless list of mostly minor announcements in chronological order, and not really an article at all. I think it's not necessary to mention every single model or minor announcements like "[name of company / other kind of legal entity] now showed ## minutes of [event / movie name] in UHD", it would be better to only point out milestones (e.g. the first UHDTV below $5,000 or whatever price seems on the verge of "actually affordable" to you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.8.1 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed a lot of minor information as well as the outdated information on THX certification. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It should not matter if it came from the reference - do the math and you'll realize the reference is flawed in the comparison data. Are you ignoring straight-forward math and blindly listening to what the reference is stating even though it is flawed? (diff)

Looking at the first edit comment, I suspect the problem here is a misunderstanding about what "8K" means. The comment assumes 8K means the number of pixels per inch in the original medium, hence the calculation (8000*(69.6mm/25.4))*(8000*(48.5/25.4)) = (21921*15275) = more than 334 megapixels, which would be ten times the number in 8K UHD. But that's the wrong calculation. "8K" is just a marketing label for a display outputting 4320 pixels vertically and 7680 pixels horizontally. That's c. 33.2 megapixels in each UHDTV frame.
The correct way to compare IMAX vs 8K frames is to calculate from the maximum IMAX film resolution, which is a function of the film emulsion and the development chemistry. Their CTO says (here) that the limiting resolution is about 12,000 horizontal pixels per frame on the original negative. For an aspect ratio of 1.36:1, there are about 8,700 vertical pixels. This means the maximum size of a 15/70mm IMAX negative is 104.4 megapixels, not 334 as calculated by the anonymous editor. But that's for the original negative, not the positive print that's projected in an IMAX film theatre. Their CTO says that the vertical resolution of "a good IMAX release print" is 4,500 lines (i.e. a 48% reduction). That means the size of an image experienced by the audience in an IMAX theatre is ((12000*0.52)*(8700*.52)) = (6240*4524) which is 28.23 megapixels in each projected IMAX film frame. Of course, there are various caveats about using this sort of comparison: IMAX frames aren't the same shape as xxHD frames, current digital displays have lower contrast than IMAX film projection (so the pixels arguably don't have the same color depth), IMAX theatres are highly optimised and continuously monitored, etc. But the claim that UHDTV is close to the detail level of IMAX film is correct and should remain in the article. - Pointillist (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a good explanation for how 8K UHDTV compares with 70mm IMAX. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In a recent edit I removed a lot of minor information from the article. I tried to be careful only to remove minor information but if anyone thinks something notable was removed they can add it back into the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the page looks significantly better with the use of the {{clear}} template as in this version vs. without them in this version. Have you tried viewing the page at a variety of window widths? While the use of the {{clear}} template does introduce additional white space, it prevents the images from pushing across section boundaries. In my opinion, the additional white space at some window widths is a reasonable trade-off for the cleaner look of having the level two headings always extend across the page, not having images protrude into sections where they are not associated, and not having single lines of text between pictures at some window widths (which really does not look good).

When adjusting formatting we all should view the page at multiple different widths because the width at which it is viewed by readers is not something over which we have control. @Dsimic: I don't know if you did view it at multiple widths prior to making your most recent change, but it is something that should be done when making formatting choices. Personally, when making formatting adjustments like this I open the page in a new window and resize the window through multiple different widths to see what I feel is a good compromise. I also use the Responsive Design view in Firefox to try various preset widths which are commonly used.

I am not strongly attached to having the page be one way or the other. I do, however, think the compromise is better with the additional white–space, at some window widths, which the {{clear}} templates introduced instead of the, in my opinion, poor formatting that results without them at other window widths. If you have not already, do try viewing the page at multiple widths and see what you think. — Makyen (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I hear you, such formatting issues are important to me, too; some time ago, I used to introduce more of the additional formatting elements (such as {{clear}}, {{br}} etc.) but after some time I've concluded it's the best to keep the numer of those to minimum. Why? Well, there are two reasons: first, it's impossible to get a true feeling of what the page is going to look like on all possible displays and resolutions, and second, editors coming later tend to oversee those additional formatting elements, what creates sometimes almost funny effects. For example, I was editing a page which looked good on various window sizes, but when looked on an iOS device, it was totally unrecognizable – there's mobile layout to account for, too. With all that, I've learned that it's better to go without additional formatting, whenever possible.

Regarding this page, I didn't check it on various window sizes because of the above described reasoning, but now I did that; please note that viewing Wikipedia pages on anything bigger than what's an equvalent of a 15.4-inch screen almost always produces not-so-nice layouts for articles cramping many images within small amounts of text. My proposal is to move the File:CIExy1931 Rec 2020 and Rec 709.svg (second picture from top) into the "Standards" section, and we'll get the required vertical space so everything fits much better, and the picture somewhat belongs there. Also, there's a rule saying that lead sections should be limited to one picture only. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The article talks of an aspect ratio "at least" 16:9 but it's not clear what that means. Would 16:10, for example 3840x2400, qualify as being "at least" 16:9? Or what about if you went wider to 4096x2160 resolution, would that be "at least" 16:9? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Avis (talk • contribs) 13:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's confusing, I came to the talk page for this. It does make sense because these are fractions, even if you write them with an x instead of :. So wider is more and at least 16:9 means 16:9 or wider (17:9 , 1.85:1 , 2.35:1). Perhaps "wider" is clearer than "more".--Entlantian (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved: per discussion Ground Zero | t 01:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ultra high definition television → Ultra-high-definition television – Now that we have let the article rest for a year and a half at a hyphenless title that nobody requested but that the closer preferred, it's time to give it another try to convert it to a more parsable normal English punctuation. If you review the previous 3 RMs you'll find that this kind of hyphenation is very common in sources, as are the two confusing partial hyphenations. Why not give the reader a hint, and do it right? Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Support as nom. See the Talk:Ultra_high_definition_television#Data that shows that while hyphenation usage is very mixed, the use of hyphens to clarify how to parse the compound is quite common in scholarly papers. Our job being to help the reader understand the topic, we should do similarly. Furthermore, I repeat, the current title is one that nobody ever requested but that a closer took it on himself to impose, a downcased version of a trademark. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that it is a trademarked. The Consumer Electronics Association, which is an organization of over 2,000 companies, simply uses the terms "Ultra High-Definition", "Ultra HD", and "UHD". They are generic terms. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's a generic, as it is, we should use normal English punctuation to help the reader parse it. You have argued in the past for the capitalized versions used in trade, and for the one-hyphen version ""ultra-high definition television" from Rec. 2020. Neither of these helps the reader, and neither is normal English. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

For article titles what is most commonly used by reliable sources would be most useful for readers since that is what would be most recognizable. Also I have never argued for the capitalized version and what I was against was that the hyphens were added without consensus or discussion. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The hyphenless title was the original title, and has been in place for most of the life of this article, till the nominator first moved it to a hyphenated form. The move back was not discussed because it was not the subject of any move request, but in such a situation the longstanding (long-standing?) version is a good compromise, and a good decision by the closer. It has caused no problems. A double hyphenation is, to say the least, inelegant. Imc (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The title in 2010–2012 was the hyphenless capitalized trademark. The generic term makes more sense, and generic terms don't discard hyphens to the extent that trademarks do. By far a majority of sources use one or both hyphens. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose That hyphenation is less common than the current title and would go against "Ultra HD" which is a widely used term. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It is flat-out false that "hyphenation is less common than the current title". Please review the data above, re-do the book and scholar searches, and see for yourself. Dicklyon (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles states that the article title is determined based on what is most commonly used by reliable sources. That would include every reliable source on the internet. --GrandDrake (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Support—The hyphens were removed without consensus. They are in use in many sources, and abide by widely agreed rules of hyphenation in the language. Tony(talk) 06:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The hyphens were added without consensus or discussion. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Support: Basic English grammar and punctuation rules. Abbreviations do not tell us how to hyphenate, nor does jargonistic usage in specialist sources (see WP:SSF for reasons why - short version: specialized reliable sources are reliable as to facts about their specialties, e.g. specs, history, etc., but not about how to write and style English-language encyclopedic text). "It has caused no problems" isn't a rationale of any kind for what an article title should be. Other oppose reasoning amounts to "its been wrong a long time, so we can't fix it" which is nonsense logic. The hyphenless version being a trademark is a MOS:TM and WP:OFFICIALNAME problem; the current title is an unholy mishmash of half of the weird style of a trademark (the other half being capitalization) and half of a lower-case generic names, so it doubly wrong. Note: Trademarks dispense with hyphens, correct spelling, etc. on purpose; the originality and uniqueness of the variance from standard English makes them easier to get registered trademarks on and easier to defend legally against genericization and dilution. WP using the hyphenless style of the trademark is in fact a dilution of the tradeholder's mark and could cause legal problems (easily dismissed one, but don't court nuisance lawsuits for no reason). Finally, "inelegant"? It's perfectly elegant hyphenated; what's inelegant is the hyphenless usage, since it's ignorant of basic English language usage, as if written by seven-year-old children. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The current title is not a trademark. Also Wikipedia:COMMONNAME states that the article title should be the most common name for a subject based on reliable sources and "Ultra HD" is one of the most common terms that is used. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Straw man. Please read and respond to what I actually wrote. It's half the style of a trademark, and liable to be interpreted as trademark dilution (as well as ungrammatical). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The article title is not a trademark and stating a fact is not a straw man. Also what term do you think is trademarked and why do you believe that? --GrandDrake (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Ultra HD" doesn't offend the eyes as much as ultra gap high gap definition. But a hyphen would still be in order. Another solution, used by optical physicists quite a lot, is "ultrahigh"—so, "ultrahigh-definition TV". But I suppose no one in the field has pieced that one together.

We don't have to go with the lowest common factor, so the hyphens are a reasonable proposal. Tony(talk) 09:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The usage of hyphens varies in English and I think that it is most neutral for a Wikipedia article to use the term that is most common. "Ultra HD" is a very common term and for example here are the search results for "Ultra-HD" on Google news and even when searching for the hyphenated term the majority of results are for "Ultra HD". --GrandDrake (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I would search books, not google news, for something more authoritative. Tony(talk) 00:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The UHDTV specification was released in late 2012 so its development is recent. Wikipedia:Article titles states that the article title is determined based on what is most commonly used by reliable sources. That would include every reliable source on the internet. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What a reliable name is – "ultra-high-definition television", however you style it, vs. something else, like "mega-high-definition" television – is what WP:COMMONNAME tells us, not how to style it, which varies and which MOS regulates, for best understandability by our readership. Why is it that every single time a name like this comes up we have to re-re-re-re-re-re-cover the fact that WP:AT is not a style policy? — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hyphenation varies based on the term, the country, and the time period since some terms have lost hyphens over time. There is no policy in Wikipedia that mandates the use of hyphens so unlike capitalization which has a clear policy I would say that hyphenation does fall under WP:COMMONNAME. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And a decade or so of RM precedents tell you that's incorrect. MOS has consistent hyphenation rules (which, yes, do apply to titles) specifically because usage is so chaotic. We don't want WP to be chaotic. WP:AT policy where it gets into capitalization at all, the rules are derived directly from the rules in MOS. AT makes up no style rules of its own, ever. There are zero cases where AT and MOS want us to have a title that disagrees with the article prose; every time someone things there is, they're misinterpreting one, the other or both. (PS: Note that WP:NCCAPS is a guideline, not part of AT policy; it is a interpretative guideline explain how to best apply MOS:CAPS to WP:AT decisions, and like AT, NCCAPS does not make up any rules of it own.) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hyphenation in English is not consistent and varies based on location, term, and time. A person can have the opinion that hyphenation should always be used but for this article that opinion would go against what the largest CE industry body in the world has decided for UHDTV. --GrandDrake (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Support unlike in Latin (e.g. nec plus ultra), "ultra" isn't a word but has always been a prefix in English. As such, I'm uncomfortable with the willy-nilly losing of the hyphen for the sake of ignorance or laziness or "I've seen it elsewhere". -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

22:26, 27 August 2012‎ Dicklyon (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,906 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Dicklyon moved page Ultra-high definition television to Ultra-high-definition television over redirect: Using hyphens per English grammar to clarify meaning is more in keeping with WP style.) (undo)

20:51, 26 August 2012‎ DGG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,765 bytes) (0)‎ . . (DGG moved page Ultra-high-definition television to Ultra-high definition television: Rec. 2020 uses the term "ultra-high definition television" for UHDTV. The ITU-R Recommendation came out on August 23, 2012 and will be the basis for UH...) (undo | thank)

03:35, 3 September 2010‎ Youhd (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,341 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Super Hi-Vision to Ultra High Definition Television: Super Hi-Vision is Japanese name. It is necessary to use the name along International Standard.) (undo | thank)

You can see that Father Goose took it on himself to close an RM by combining the trademark's lack of hyphenation with the generic's lowercase; nobody asked for that. Before I moved it to a properly hyphenated generic, it was at various trade names. So the title being proposed here, which is the one I gave it before, was the first non-over-capitalized one, stable or otherwise. During this time, the artilce lead sported various hyphenations, too, such as "ultra-high definition television" and "ultra high-definition television", both of which can be found in sources, but neither of which much helps the reader understand what it's trying to indicate. Is it a definition television that's ultra high? Or a high-definition television that's ultra? No, it's neither of those. Let's use hyphens as they are meant to be used, to clarify. Readers who don't know the difference won't care, and readers who do will find it reads more sensibly. Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear that if an article move is contested that the article should be moved back. Father Goose followed that policy and the reason he changed the capitalization was due to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Since 2010 the only two article titles this article has had that followed Wikipedia policy were "Ultra High Definition Television" and "Ultra high definition television". --GrandDrake (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Father Goose's intent aside, it still had the unacceptable result of a confused and confusing nonsense title that's a bastardized amalgamation of half a trademark and half an ungrammatical lower-case phrase. What to do here and how has nothing to do with how one feels about characterizing Father Goose's old close. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What the CEA uses for UHDTV is what is most recognizable to the average reader. --GrandDrake (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources use all possible combinations of hyphens, just like the nominator says. Support because in this case we can choose the combination of hyphens that is clearer to our readers. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support per nom, per basic grammar, for reader clarity, sequential adjectives should be hyphenated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

DigitalEurope has released their Ultra HD logo. While I agree that the logo image that was added needed information in regards to copyright it was a bit much that all the information about it was deleted. I also notice that the article about the organization is in the process of getting deleted even though the article has been on Wikipedia since 2004. I know that some people don't like how "Ultra HD" looks but I don't think information should be deleted because of that. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone trying to delete the article, though I did take out the copyvio part. Someone else tagged the logo as having no license info. These things are fixable. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable though most of time I don't see that copyright warning used unless someone is planning to delete the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, when a whole article is a copyvio, deletion is a good option. I don't think that's the case here (though I haven't looked hard); it does appear to have been mostly written by people with "digitaleurope" in their user names, probably thinking it was OK to copy from their own site; and if they provide evidence of a license, that may well be OK. Dicklyon (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you were also referring to my COI/spam removal edit. If you want to put in something more neutral, that would be good. As for whether to use the logo image, I'd wait until the license status is clarified; the uploader claimed it was his own work, which might be sort of true if he represents DigitalEurope as he sort of seems to be claiming, but that's still not an OK way to do this. Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New to this kinda thing but I don't see how any info page on UHD can be seen as unbiased without mention of the bandwidth issue. Currently there is almost 0 content and many of the tv's cannot even support the needed bandwidth if providers could get it there. hdmi 2.0 only has 18mbs which isn't wide enough for 4k. The higher resolution means you need higher frame rates than 18Gbs can supply. Only High end computers even can download and play back video at the 120hz that you really need as a baseline for an improved image quality and that would be to a monitor not a UHD tv due to too much of the bandwidth of hdmi 2.0 being set aside for audio. Do the math 1080(verticle)x1920(length) x120hz = 248,832,000 pixels a second. To make it worse internet connections even when we apply extreme active compression like we see with cable providers and steamers as netflix it will be near impossible in most countries until we see must faster connections readily available — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.225.84.149 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The use of 4K or 8K as names for 2160p or 4320p are a form of consumer fraud and should not be used in this article, except to indicate that vendors have been known to incorrectly use these abbreviations. Actual 4096 pixel wide displays are used by animation professionals, causing a conflict when using the designation 4K.

Ultra High Definition (UHD) started as a marketing term to distinguish a new generation of displays. It does not specify a specific resolution. However, the higher bandwidth (amount of data per second) required for display at above 1080p-16:9 resolution requires special equipment.

The for flat panel displays term resolution actually means mm per pixel. For example, a 28" diagonal display with the capacity to display 1920x1080 has a resolution 0.32 mm/pixel. A slang use of the term resolution is the number of pixels horizontally and vertically.

The term 1440p (the lowest UHD vertical size) has been use as an abbreviation for 2560 by 1440 pixels, even though there are actually 7 different aspect ratios that have been defined for UHD displays. The most common aspect ratio is currently 16:9 (the widest available for HD). However, since modern movies use aspect ratios of 21:9 through 23:9, the 21:9 ratio has been approved for UHD. So a 1440p display should properly be designated by either the 2560x1440 pixels or by one of the abbreviations such as 1440p-21:9 or 1440p-16:9.

Although the appended p means progressive scan, and an appended i means interlaced scan, UHD signals are all progressive. An interlaced scan is used for 1920x1080 (1080i) broadcast or cable television to limit the required bandwidth to 6 Mhz, a standard channel. Standard Definition (SD) signals require 6 Mhz for analog or 2 Mhz for compressed digital. With newer compression techniques, 1080p-16:9 requires approximately 10 Mhz (instead of 12 Mhz) and 1440p-16:9 requires a signal bandwidth of approximately 20 Mhz. A 2160p-21:9 requires a little over 50 Mhz of bandwidth.

For close viewing, a resolution of 12 pixels per mm (about 300 pixels per inch - medium quality printer resolution) is a high enough resolution so that a human cannot distinguish individual pixels. For most people, 8 pixels per mm is sufficient at a viewing distance of 35cm (about 14 inches). A 1080p-16:9 display is normally approximately 2 to 4 pixels per mm, however at 8 pixels per mm, a diagonal size of 275 mm (10.8 inches) would make it almost impossible to distinguish individual pixels (most computer displays are a little over twice this size, so a 2160p16:9 display might be useful).

For television watching, a 1080p-21:9 display has sufficient resolution. At a viewing distance of 2 meters (about 6.6 feet), 0.14 pixels per mm (approximately 3.5 pixels per inch) is sufficient to avoid visibility of individual pixels. With a 1080-16:9 display, a diagonal display size of approximately 1.96 meters (50 inches) is excellent for hiding individual pixels. Movie theaters use a screen as much as 10 times as large, but 1080-21:9 is sufficient resolution, because of the greater viewing distance.

1) When inserting HTML special entities (for example &NBSP;), a space must follow the ; to obey the strict HTML rules. Since Microsoft did not insert the space in its early software, most browsers will work without the space, but some just display the entity text without change (such as "32&NBST;kbytes" instead of "32 kbytes"). This is also true for numeric entities such as &xFFFE; or &u123456789ABCDEF0 (these are only example values, they do not encode characters).

2) Be consistent with units. For example, kbits should always be used instead of kbit, unless it is 1 kbit. Mhz is proper, because Hertz is already plural.

3) The power of 2 versus power of 10 problem can cause confusion in this article. One Mhz is 1,000,000 cycles per second. One Mbit/s is 1,048,576 bits per second. One Mbyte is 1,048,576 bytes when measuring memory or bandwidth, but is 1,000,000 bytes when applied to storage media.

4) 4K means 4096, not 2160p. The article should not use this as if it is approved by any governing body. The same applies to 8K. These are obsolete marketing terms, not technical terms. Actual 4k (4096x2048) UHD displays exist for the professional market.

5) The screen aspect ratio of 16:9 is only one of 6 aspect ratios defined for HDTV by governing bodies. There are 7 approved aspect ratios defined for UHDTV. The new ratio is 21:9, the most common 21st century movie format.

I know this is not what you are concerned about here but to avoid misleading anyone (and to be a touch pedantic) "Mhz" is not "proper"; it should be "MHz" because the symbol for the unit is "Hz" - with an initial capital (as it is named for a person, Heinrich Hertz). Also, I am a bit confused by your point 3). 1Mbyte is surely 1,048,576 bytes whether its memory or storage (indeed some forms of memory are also used as removable storage and so must use the same capacity measurement). Satbuff (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Using two adjectives is wrong! You should either use Ultra or High! Now ultra high?? What's next? Super Ultra Mega Hyper High Definition??? Americans adore to crush the English language! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That is the name that was chosen for it, there is no point in commenting here as we are not the ones who decide what it is called. You should direct your comment to ITU (International Telecommunications Union), an international (i.e. not American) organization, which is the one that decided on the name. You may contact ITU through various means here: http://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/contact.aspxGlenwingKyros (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)